History and Educational Potential of LEGO Mindstorms

NXT

Mehmet ÜÇGÜL1

Abstract: Educational usage of the robotics has accelerated recently because of educational potential of
robotics has been recognized by educators and popularity of international robotics tournaments. Many
university and schools prepare technology and robotics related summer schools for children. LEGO
Mindstorms NXT is the most popular and commonly used robotics set for educational purposes. These robot
sets rooted to Seymour Papert’s LOGO studies which have much influence Instructional Technology in
1960’s. This study aims to present a literature review on educational potential of LEGO Mindstorms NXT
robotics sets. Robotics mainly used in education for supporting the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics) education. Most of the related studies resulted with positive effects of the robotics activities
in STEM education. Robotics also used in education to increase some skills of the children such as discovery
learning, critical thinking and social skills.

Key words: LEGO Mindstorms NXT, robotics, educational potential

Özet: LEGO Mindstorms NXT’lerin Tarihi ve Eğitsel Potansiyeli: Robotların eğitsel amaçlarla kullanımı
giderek artmaktadır. Eğitimcilerin robotların eğitsel potansiyelinin farkına varmaları ve uluslararası robot
turnuvalarının popülerlik kazanmasının robotların eğitsel kullanımına katkısı büyüktür. Birçok üniversite ve
okul, teknoloji ve robotlar konulu yaz kampları düzenlemektedirler. LEGO Mindstorms NXT en popüler ve en
çok kullanılan eğitsel robot setleridir. Bu robot setlerinin geçmişi, Seymour Papert’in LOGO çalışmalarına
dayanmaktadır. Bu çalışmaların 1960’larda eğitim teknolojisine büyük etkileri olmuştur. Bu tarama
çalışmasının amacı son zamanlarda eğitimcilerin ilgisini çeken, robotların eğitsel amaçlarla kullanımına
yönelik çalışmaları inceleyerek, LEGO Mindstorms NXT robot setlerinin eğitim amaçlı kullanım
potansiyellerinin belirlenmesidir. Robotlar eğitimde en çok FTMM (Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve
Matematik) eğitimini desteklemek amaçlı kullanılmışlardır. Bu konuda yapılan çalışmaların büyük bir
bölümü robotların FTMM eğitimine pozitif etkisiyle sonuçlanmıştır. Robotların eğitimde bir diğer kullanım
alanı ise çocukların keşfetme, eleştirel düşünebilme ve sosyal becerilerini geliştirme amaçlıdır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: LEGO Mindstorms NXT, robotik, eğitsel potansiyel

Introduction

Robots’ educational potential as teaching tools and motivators has long been recognized by educators,
but economic constrains prohibited its extensive deployment. However, in the past few years cost of the
robots has been decreased and their performance has been increased. Nowadays, robots are affordable,
powerful and reliable to be deployed in college and even high schools. With the popularity of international
robot championship, educational usage of the robots has accelerated recently.
Many universities and schools prepare technology and robotics related summer schools for children
(Cannon et al., 2006; Cannon, Panciera, & Papanikolopoulos, 2007; Keathly & Akl, 2007; Nordstrom,
Reasonover, & Hutchinson, 2009; Williams, Ma, Prejean, & Ford, 2008). Some of the technology related
camps were prepared especially for girls to increase their curiosity and interest toward STEM (Science,
Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and also increase the possibilities of the engineering careers
(Burket, Small, Rossetti, Hill, & Gattis, 2008).
Robotics and STEM relations are not limited with the study of STEM careers. Robotics became the
new approach to provide students with hands on experience while learning science subjects (Jim, 2010).
Williams et al. (2008) stated that the summer robotics camp, they designed for their study, enhanced
middle school students’ physics content knowledge. Also, Mataric, Koenig, and Feil-Seifer (2007)
concluded that robotics has been proved that a superb tool for hands-on learning, not only of robotics itself,
but also general science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

1
Yrd. Doç. Dr. Kırıkkale Üniversitesi, Eğitim Fakültesi Bilgisayar ve Öğretim Teknolojileri Eğitimi Bölümü
memet3gul@gmail.com

Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 9, Sayı 2, Ağustos 2013, ss.127-137.
Mersin University Journal of the Faculty of Education, Vol. 9, Issue 2, August 2013, pp.127-137.
 History and Educational Potential of LEGO Mindstorms
NXT

Aim of this literature review is to explore educational potential of robotics. Because of its popularity
and common usage, LEGO Mindstorms NXT robotics sets are focused in the study. The theoretical
background of the robotics and historical development of NXT robotics sets also reviewed to better
evaluation of related studies.
Theoretical Background: Constructionism
In the 1960s, Seymour Papert and colleagues initiated a research projects at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT), to understand how children think and learn. They invented the programming language
is LOGO. LOGO has been used by tens of millions of school children all over the world. Its theoretical
background influenced educators and researchers direction of educational reform and roles of the
technology in education. That theoretical background is known as “constructionism” (Kafai & Resnick,
1996).
Papert worked with Piaget at late 1950’s and early 1960’s in Switzerland, and he stated that “in 1964,
after five years at Piaget's Center for Genetic Epistemology in Geneva, I came away impressed by his way
of looking at children as the active builders of their own intellectual structures” (Papert, 1993, p. 19).
Papert built his theory of learning on the constructivist theories of Jean Piaget, stating that learning is
active construction of the knowledge in the learner’s mind, knowledge is not simply transmitted from
teacher to student. In addition to constructivist theory, Papert constructed his learning theory based on
artificial intelligence theories and gender and personality studies (Harel, 1991).
Papert makes the simplest definition of the constructionism as “learning by making” (Papert & Harel,
1991). He adopted the word constructionism refer to everything that related to “learning by making” and
the idea behind constructionism includes and goes far beyond the idea of “learning by doing”, that is the
idea behind constructivism (Papert, 1999). Seymour Papert and Idit Harel made following definition of
constructionism in the first chapter of their book Constructionism.
Constructionism--the N word as opposed to the V word--shares constructivism's connotation of
learning as "building knowledge structures" irrespective of the circumstances of the learning. It then adds
the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in
constructing a public entity, whether it's a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe (Papert &
Harel, 1991, p. 1).

Constructionism, Constructivism Similarities and Differences

Piaget and Papert are both constructivists. They viewed children as the builders of their own
knowledge. Knowledge is not merely an asset to be transmitted, encoded, grasped, retained but constructed
and reconstructed through personal experience. Learning means the creating of concepts and rules through
an active process of doing and thinking (Ackermann, 2001; Harel, 1991).
According to Ackermann (2001), Piaget and Papert are also both developmentalists which means they
have common idea on incremental knowledge construction. They both studied the learning conditions.
Learners are likely to keep or change their theories about given phenomenon through interacting with it.
However, Papert in his book Mindstorms Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas (1993) stated that he
does not fully accept Piaget’s distinction concrete thinking and formal thinking but he accepts that this
distinction close enough to reality. Piaget believed that computer can concretize (and personalize) the
formal thinking. Therefore, computer can allow us to shift the boundary separating concrete and formal
thinking.
Constructionist view sees children as the active builder of their knowledge rather than passive receiver
of the knowledge from teacher, as in constructivist view, however constructionist view adds extra
emphasis to “external artifact” and “sharing with others” (Kafai & Resnick, 1996; Maxwell, 2006).
“Unlike Piaget, Papert believes that learning as particularly effective when it takes place in the context of a
rich and concrete activity, which the learner (child as well as adult) experiences while constructing a
meaningful product such as a piece of artwork, a story, or a research report. Therefore, he creates and
emphasizes far richer learning environments than does Piaget in his experiments” (Harel, 1991, p. 26).
While accepting the Piaget’s cognitive stages, “Papert is interested in how learners engage in a
conversation with [their own or other people’s] artifacts, and how these conversations boost self-directed
learning, and ultimately facilitate the construction of new knowledge” (Ackermann, 2001, p. 1). He

128
Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
ÜÇGÜL

stresses the importance of tools, media, and context in human development (Ackermann, 2001; Harel,
1991).

History: LOGO to Mindstorms

What is LOGO
After returning to the United States, Seymour Papert founded MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
with Marvin Minsky. Early work of the Papert with his research group included the development of the
LOGO programming language. First version of LOGO was created in 1967. LOGO was computer
language which communication with the Turtle which is basketball sized, dome shaped robot. Turtle could
move across the floor by LOGO commands like FORWARD, BACKWARD, LEFT and RIGHT; and
made drawings on butcher paper with mounted pen (Martin, Mikhak, Resnick, Silverman, & Berg, 2000;
Papert, 1993; Watt, 1982). For example FORWARD 100 makes the Turtle move in a straight line about
100 millimeter. Typing PENDOWN causes the turtle to lower a pen to draw trace of the turtle (Papert,
1993). According to Papert (1993) turtle served as an “object-to-think-with”
Most popular version of LOGO has floor turtle. In 1970s the turtle migrated to computer screen.
Screen turtle was more accurate and much faster than the floor turtle that allow to children to create and
examine more complex geometric shapes. Some turtle shapes can change shape to birds, cars, planes or
whatever the designer chooses (Martin et al., 2000; Sargent et al., 1996; Watt, 1982).
LEGO/LOGO
In the mid-1980s LOGO research group began to collaboration with LEGO group. They created
LEGO/LOGO system which is combination of LEGO Technic product (which includes beams, gears, and
motors) and LOGO language. Therefore, the turtle was of the screen and turned back to into the world.
However, LEGO/LOGO was different from the earlier floor turtle. LEGO/LOGO was not already built
mechanical object. Children can build their own machines such as a Ferris wheel, elevator, and robot
creature before programming them. Children did not restrict to the turtles (Martin et al., 2000; Sargent et
al., 1996; Watt, 1982).
In the late 1980s, LEGO/LOGO system became commercially available. It was sold to schools with
the name “LEGO tc LOGO” by the Lego group. It was used more than 15.000 elementary and middle
schools in the United States (Martin et al., 2000; Sargent et al., 1996; Watt, 1982).
Programmable Brick
LEGO/LOGO had limitations. The machines constructed by children had to be connected to computer
with wires. When children used LEGO/LOGO to create mobile machines, wires limited its mobility. Wires
got tangled with other objects in the environments also they restrict the range of machines. Each motors
and sensors should be connected to the computer with their own cable. Therefore, they get twisted in knots
as the machine rotates. Moreover, it was difficult to think LEGO/LOGO machine as an autonomous while
it was attached to a computer (Martin et al., 2000; Sargent et al., 1996). Fred Martin (1988) and his
research group have overcome this deficiency by first Programmable Bricks in 1987. The Programmable
Brick had a computer inside, therefore to program the Programmable Brick you first write the program on
the computer, and then download the program to the Programmable Brick via a cable. Then, the brick can
be disconnected from the computer. The program stored on the brick and the brick can be carried anywhere
and the program can be executed without connected to a computer (Sargent et al., 1996).
RCX
From 1992 to 1996 Randy Sargent and his colleagues created second generation Programmable Bricks
(Gray Brick and Red Brick). Fieldwork with tree classroom usage of Red Brick were resulted some design
upgrades at size, LC screen, and LOGO programming environment. The idea of putting LOGO statements
as blocks (called Logo Blocks) serves as the basis for the Lego Group later commercial usage. Red Brick
and its field works would be basis for the development of the Lego RCX Brick which shares many
common features with the MIT Red Brick (Martin et al., 2000; Mindell et al., n.d.). In their article
“Building and Learning with Programmable Bricks”, Sargent and colleagues listed twenty things to do

129
Cilt 9, No 2, Ağustos 2013
 History and Educational Potential of LEGO Mindstorms
NXT

with a programmable brick, inspired on Papert and Solomon's (1971) memo called Twenty things to Do
with a Computer.

Lego Mindstorms
In 1998, the Lego Company released a new product called the LEGO Mindstorms Robotic Invention
Kit consisting of 717 pieces including LEGO bricks, motors, gears, different sensors, and a RCX Brick
which contains three input ports and three output ports attached to a Hitachi H8/3292 micro controller
(McWhorter, 2005; Mindell et al., n.d.). Lego Company believed in robot design concept so strongly that
they gave the name of Seymour Papert’s book (Martin et al., 2000).
First-generation Lego Mindstorms kit was replaced with Lego Mindstorms NXT kit in 2006 (Figure
1). At the heart of the system is NXT brick which is a multipurpose controller that interfaces easily with a
development or graphics computer. The main processor of the NXT is a 32-bit Atmel® ARM® processor
operating at 48 MHz, with 256 kB flash memory and 64 kB RAM; an 8-bit, 8 MHz co-processor provides
additional functionality. It has four-button interface and a 100 x 64 pixel (26 x 40.6 mm) LCD display. It
can communicate with a desktop or laptop computer with the integral USB 2.0 port (12 Mbit/s) or the
wireless Bluetooth port, based on the single-chip CSR BlueCore™ 4 (“Lego Mindstorms NXT Hardware
Developer Kit,” n.d.). In addition to the NXT brick, Lego Mindstorms NXT kit consists of 577 pieces,
including: 3 servo motors, 4 sensors (ultrasonic, sound, touch, and light) (See Figure 1). The kit also
includes NXT-G, a graphical programming environment that enables the creation and downloading of
programs to the NXT.

Figure 1 Components of LEGO Mindstorms NXT

Robotics Studies in Education
Papert (1993) says that robots are one of the best tools to implement constructivist learning principles.
Some of the studies with robotics activities resulted that robotics activities increased students’ motivation
toward mathematics and science courses (Robinson, 2005; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004). They provide
practice platform for science and mathematics principles (Rogers & Portsmore, 2004), and increased
students problem solving skills (Beer et al., 1999; Nourbakhsh et al., 2004; Petre & Price, 2004; Robinson,
2005; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004). However, some studies could not find positive effect of robotics in

130
Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
ÜÇGÜL

educational settings (Bjoerner, 2009; Fagin & Merkle, 2003; Hussain, Lindh, & Shukur, 2006; McNally,
Goldweber, Fagin, & Klassner, 2006).
One of the large scale studies about robotics was conducted in Peru (Iturrizaga, 2000). The quasi-
experimental, posttest-only approach was used. Fourteen schools were selected to participate in the study.
The sample involved 553 students in grade 2, 566 students in grade 4, and 534 students in grade 6. Many
post-test employed to assess the students’ ability to use mathematical skills related to real world problems,
technology knowledge, Spanish performance, eye-hand coordination, problem solving and self-esteem.
After one year usage of LEGO, the results revealed that students in the experimental group had
outperformed the students control group in math, technology, Spanish, and eye-hand coordination. The
difference between the boys and girls were not significant.
Hussain, Lindh, and Shukur (2006) made similar large scale study to investigate the effect of one year
of regular LEGO training on pupils’ performance in schools in Sweden. There were 322 students, 193 at
fifth grade and 129 at ninth grade in experimental group and there were 374 students, 169 at fifth grade
and 205 at ninth grade in control group. Then they looked at achievements in mathematics for fifth grade
students before and after the training by using the standard two-sample t-test, they found a positive shift in
the mean from 0.711 to 0.817 with p-value = 0.000 indicating better performances in mathematics for the
trained group (the group trained with LEGO). For the problem solving, on the other hand, they have found
a slight shift in the opposite direction from 0.696 to 0.649 with p-value = 0.023 which is rather significant.
When ninth grade students were compared they did not find any significant difference neither mathematics
nor problem solving.
In another study, Fagin and Merkle (2003) used robots to teach computer science at 2000 - 2001
academic year. Their computer science course was given to 938 freshman year students in 48 sections of
15-20 students each. Nine of these sections were designated as “robotics” sections, where they provided
laboratory instruction using Lego Mindstorms robots and programming environments. They found that the
test scores were lower in the robotics sections than in the non-robotic section. They concluded that this
result occurred because students in robotics section must run and debug their programs on robots during
assigned lab times, therefore deprived of both reflective time and the rapid compile-run-debug cycle
outside of class that was an important part of the learning process.
Williams, Ma, Prejean, and Ford, (2008) prepared a two week summer robotics camp to explore
middle school students’ physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills. A single group of 21
summer camp participants was pre-tested, exposed to the summer camp program, and post-tested. The
result of the study revealed that the robotics summer camp had a statistically significant impact on
students’ gains in physics content knowledge, however, no statistically significant difference was found on
scientific inquiry skills.
Robinson (2005) has interviewed with the science teachers who used Robolab (Mindstorms
programming environment) in 8th grade physics courses; the teachers reported that; robotics activities
increased students’ motivation and attitude toward the physics and students’ inquiry skills. Moreover, Petre
and Price, (2004) observed and interviewed the children who attended RoboCup Junior (6 - 18 years old)
and RoboFiesta (12 -14 years old). The children stated that robots had positive effect on their
programming, problem solving, and team work skills also hardware and electronic knowledge had
increased.
McNally, Goldweber, Fagin, and Klassner (2006) focused on disadvantages of the robots in
educational settings. They defined logistical and pedagogical disadvantages. “The primary logistical
disadvantage is cost. While it is not overly expensive to outfit a lab with Mindstorms-based robots, it is too
expensive to provide each Computer Science 1 (CS 1) student with their own robot. This implies that all
student experimentation is limited to the robot lab's operating hours” (p.61). This disadvantage was similar
to result of Fagin and Merkle's (2003) study. Unfortunately, various sensor of Mindstorms need to be re-
calibrated for changing physical environments, and battery level of the robot will change turning angle and
speed of the robots. Learned programming skills should be both worthwhile and useful; however learned
programming skills from Mindstorms will not be reused or reinforced anywhere else in the undergraduate
CS curriculum.
One of the study conducted by Barker and Ansorge (2007) focused on investigation of the
effectiveness of an informal 4-H science curriculum to teach SET (Science, Engineering and Technology)
concepts and validation of assessment instruments. LEGO Mindstorms kit and Robolab programming

131
Cilt 9, No 2, Ağustos 2013
 History and Educational Potential of LEGO Mindstorms
NXT

software were used at an after-school program and 42 students aged 9 to 11 participated the study. The
result of the study showed that even though there was improvement on the post-test with the experimental
group, the control group scored better on some items.
Ruiz-del-Solar and Aviles (2004) developed range of robotics activities to motivate school children
for pursuing studies in science and technology and university careers in science and technology, increasing
their technological literacy and becoming technology-friendly adults. More than 700 children from 7th
through 10th grade and 90 teachers participated in the workshops. They evaluated the workshops with
questionnaires focused children’s satisfaction, the level of completed work and interest in pursuing an
engineering career. They reported that 92% of the participants satisfied with the workshop, 88% finished
all the basic tasks during the workshop and 86% of the participants indicated they will follow an
engineering or science university career in the future. They found that children’s self-motivation seems to
be the key element for their success during the workshop; unmotivated children do rather poorly.
Moreover, the group structure also plays an important role for success of the workshop. Best group works
occurred when previously unknown participants meet each other for the first time during the workshop to
form a working team.
In the fall of 1998, the Pennsylvania Department of Education granted Bloomsburg University to
support the creation of an innovative problem-solving course that would use a combination of logic, hands-
on experience, and trial and error to help students identify the process behind effectively solving problems
(Mauch, 2001). During summer of 1999, eight middle school teachers from many districts enrolled in a
twenty hours course to learn about the LEGO Mindstorms system and how to implement it within their
curricula. In the second week, forty gifted students from 6th to 8th grade attended a thirty hours camp
taught by these teachers. The students were placed in a group of four and each one received a specific task
such as builder, programmer etc. The teacher reported that three students would be ideal and the system
should be more readily implemented in a classroom where the same students had the same robotic system
each day for several weeks. Mauch (2001) concluded that this new product has shown promise, “students
remain highly engaged throughout the process because they visualize their robots as a toy” (p. 212).
However, cost, and classroom implementation are the primary problems. In addition, the nature of the
system requires considerable time engagement for both students and teachers.
Bjoerner (2009) conducted a study with 300 Danish children aged 9-14 focused on the question of
children’s attitudes towards robotics technology. Half of the children participated in the robotics
competition FLL (First Lego League) and the other group (from the same geographic area) did not. He
concluded that there were no significant differences concerning attitudes towards robots between children
who participated in the robotics competition FLL and children who did not.
Benitti, (2012) made a systematic review on educational usage of robotics. Results of the review
showed that 80% of the study explore physics and mathematics related subjects which are Newton’s Laws
of Motion, distances, angles, kinematics, graph construction and interpretation, fractions, ratios and
geospatial concepts. That is in the related literature also support that, educational usage of robotics are not
limited with subjects that are closely related to the robotics field, such as robot programming, robot
construction, or mechatronics. Moreover she reported that the articles also emphasize problem solving,
logic and scientific inquiry have improved through robotics.
Conclusion and Discussion
This study presents a review of published literature on the use of educational robotics, to identify
educational potential of robotics, especially LEGO Mindstorms NXT robotics sets. The most common
outcome of the use of robotics is to support the STEM education. Although most of the studies resulted
with positive effects of the robotics activities in STEM education, there are some implementation problems
of robotics in todays’ formal STEM education.
When the STEM (Science and Technology, Mathematics and Technology & Design courses in
Turkey) curricula are investigated, it could be seen that vision of these courses are to give questioning,
critical thinking, and problem solving skills to children (TTKB, 2006a, 2006b, 2009). There are many
robotics studies in the literature aimed to measure effects of robotics activities on these skills (Barak &
Zadok, 2007; Barker & Ansorge, 2007; Beer, Chiel, & Drushel, 1999; Hussain, Lindh, & Shukur, 2006;
Johnson, 2003; Lindh & Holgersson, 2007; Mauch, 2001; Mosley & Kline, 2006; Nugent, Barker, &
Grandgenett, 2010; Robinson, 2005; Sullivan, 2008; Wyeth, Venz & Wyeth, 2004). Review of the related

132
Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
ÜÇGÜL

literature revealed that robotics activities have positive effects on children’s discovery learning and critical
thinking skills because robotics activities give children to use questioning, critical thinking and problem
solving skills. It is obvious that a robot is a good tool not only of robotics itself, but also for general
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts (Mataric et al., 2007).
To investigate potentials of using robots in formal STEM education, a robotic camp can be organized
with STEM teachers. Six teachers from different STEM areas (Science and technology, mathematics and
technology and design courses) could attend first week of the camp and teachers get training on robotics
and programming. Then, the teachers prepare activities with robots aimed to teach a subject in their field.
Second week of the camp, children attend to camp and they work with teachers in group work. After they
have learnt robotics and programming they work on the activities that teachers had prepared. At the end of
the camp, children and teachers’ opinions could be taken about implementation of the robots in the formal
education.
Another common usage of robotics in education is to increase children’s interest toward technology,
computing, and engineering. The literature review shows that robotics have potential to increase their
curiosity and interest toward STEM and also increase the possibilities of the engineering careers (Burket et
al., 2008). Interested researcher could design long term research to investigate the relation between
robotics activities and career choices of the children.
Another suggestion for future research is to evaluate the effects of robotics activities on children’s
social skills such as team working skills. Literature about this subject is limited and inaccurate (Benitti,
2012). Lastly, use of robotics in other areas of learning not related to STEM or social learning could also
be investigated.
This review shown that educational robotics has potential as a learning tool; not only robotics and
programming but also STEM related concepts. It is expected that this review will provide useful guidance
for those who interested robotics activities in education.

References
Ackermann, E. (2001). Piaget’s constructivism, Papert’s constructionism: What’s the difference.
Future of learning group publication, 5(3), 438.
Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2007). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and
problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 289–307.
Barker, B. S., & Ansorge, J. (2007). Robotics as means to increase achievement scores in an
informal learning environment. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(3), 229.
Beer, R. D., Chiel, H. J., & Drushel, R. F. (1999). Using autonomous robotics to teach science and
engineering. Communications of the ACM, 42(6), 85–92.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic
review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.
Bjoerner, T. (2009, June). If I had a Robot it should do Everything for me: Children’s Attitudes to
Robots in Everyday Life. International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 243–254.
Burket, S., Small, C., Rossetti, C., Hill, B., & Gattis, C. (2008). A day camp for middle school girls
to create a STEM pipeline. Proceedings of the 2008 American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA.
Cannon, K., LaPoint, M. A., Bird, N., Panciera, K., Veeraraghavan, H., Papanikolopoulos, N., &
Gini, M. (2006). No fear: University of Minnesota Robotics Day Camp introduces local youth
to hands-on technologies. Robotics and Automation, 2006. ICRA 2006. Proceedings 2006 IEEE
International Conference on (pp. 363–368).
Cannon, K. R., Panciera, K. A., & Papanikolopoulos, N. P. (2007). Second annual robotics summer
camp for underrepresented students. Proceedings of the 12th annual SIGCSE conference on
Innovation and technology in computer science education (pp. 14–18). New York, NY, USA:
ACM.
Fagin, B., & Merkle, L. (2003). Measuring the effectiveness of robots in teaching computer science.
ACM SIGCSE Bulletin (Vol. 35, pp. 307–311). ACM. doi:10.1145/792548.611994
Harel, I. (1991). Children designers. Ablex Pub. Corp. (pp. 24–27). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing.

133
Cilt 9, No 2, Ağustos 2013
 History and Educational Potential of LEGO Mindstorms
NXT

Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO Training on Pupils ’ School
Performance in Mathematics , Problem Solving Ability and Attitude : Swedish Data.
Educational Technology & Society, 9(3), 182 – 194.
Iturrizaga, I. M. (n.d.). Study of educational impact of the LEGO Dacta materials-INFOESCUELA-
MED. Final Report. 2000.
Jim, C. K. W. (2010). Teaching with LEGO mindstorms robots: Effects on learning environment and
attitudes toward science. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The University of Texas at
Dallas, United States -- Texas.
Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1), 16–21.
doi:10.1007/s10015-003-0265-5
Kafai, Y. B., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning
in a digital world. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Keathly, D., & Akl, R. (2007). Attracting and Retaining Women in Computer Science and
Engineering: Evaluating the Results. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference.
Lego Mindstorms NXT Hardware Developer Kit. (n.d.). Retrieved August 18, 2011, from
http://mindstorms.lego.com/en-us/support/files/default.aspx
Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical
problems? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1097–1111.
Martin, F. (1988). Children, cybernetics, and programmable turtles. Unpublished Masters Thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Laboratory.
Martin, F., Mikhak, B., Resnick, M., Silverman, B., & Berg, R. (2000). To mindstorms and beyond:
Evolution of a construction kit for magical machines. Robots for kids: Exploring new
technologies for learning (pp. 9–33). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Mataric, M. J., Koenig, N., & Feil-Seifer, D. (2007). Materials for enabling hands-on robotics and
STEM education. AAAI spring symposium on robots and robot venues: Resources for AI
education.
Mauch, E. (2001). Using Technological Innovation To Improve the Problem-Solving Skills of
Middle School Students: Educators’ Experiences with the LEGO Mindstorms Robotic
Invention System. Clearing House, 74(4), 211–214.
Maxwell, J. W. (2006). Re-situating Constructionism. The International Handbook of Virtual
Learning Environments, 279–298.
McNally, M., Goldweber, M., Fagin, B., & Klassner, F. (2006). Do lego mindstorms robots have a
future in CS education? Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer
science education - SIGCSE ’06, 61. doi:10.1145/1121341.1121362
McNerney, T. (2004). From turtles to Tangible Programming Bricks: explorations in physical
language design. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 8(5), 326–337. doi:10.1007/s00779-
004-0295-6
McWhorter, W. (2005). Turtles and beyond: A history of programmable robots. Unpublished
manuscript.
Mindell, D., Beland, C., Wesley, C., Clarke, D., Park, R., & Trupiano, M. (n.d.). LEGO mindstorms,
the structure of an engineering (r)evolution. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from
web.mit.edu/6.933/www/Fall2000/LegoMindstorms.pdf
Mosley, P., & Kline, R. (2006). Engaging Students: A Framework Using LEGO® Robotics to Teach
Problem Solving. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 24(1).
Nordstrom, G., Reasonover, G., & Hutchinson, B. (2009). Attracting Students to Engineering
Through Robotics Camp. ASEE Southeast Section Conference.
Nourbakhsh, I. R., Hamner, E., Crowley, K., & Wilkinson, K. (2004). Formal measures of learning
in a secondary school mobile robotics course. Robotics and Automation, 2004. Proceedings.
ICRA ’04. 2004 IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 1831–1836 Vol.2).
Nugent, G., Barker, B., & Grandgenett, N. (2010). Impact of Robotics and Geospatial Technology
Interventions on Youth STEM Learning and Attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 42(4), 391–408.
Papert, S. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York. New York:
Basic Books.
Papert, S. (1999). What is Logo? Who needs it. Logo Philosophy and Implementation (pp. iv–xvi).
Logo Computer Systems Inc.

134
Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
ÜÇGÜL

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (n.d.). Situating constructionism. Retrieved July 15, 2011, from
http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html
Papert, S., & Solomon, C. (1971). Twenty things to do with a computer. Retrieved July 15, 2011,
from http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/5836
Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using Robotics to Motivate “Back Door” Learning. Education and
Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158. doi:10.1023/B:EAIT.0000027927.78380.60
Robinson, M. (2005). Robotics-Driven Activities: Can They Improve Middle School Science
Learning? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 25(1), 73–84.
doi:10.1177/0270467604271244
Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM
Education, 5(3-4), 17–28.
Ruiz-del-Solar, J., & Aviles, R. (2004). Robotics Courses for Children as a Motivation Tool: The
Chilean Experience. IEEE Transactions on Education, 47(4), 474–480.
doi:10.1109/TE.2004.825063
Sargent, R., Resnick, M., Martin, F., & Silverman, B. (1996). Building and learning with
programmable bricks. Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking and learning in a
digital world, 161–174.
Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and
systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 373–394.
doi:10.1002/tea
Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (TTKB). (2006a). İlköğretim Fen ve Teknoloji Dersi (6,7 ve 8.
Sınıflar) Öğretim Programı.
Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (TTKB). (2006b). İlköğretim Teknoloji ve Tasarım Dersi
Öğretim Programı ve Klavuzu (6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar ).
Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı (TTKB). (2009). İlköğretim Matematik Dersi 1-5. Sınıflar
Öğretim Programı.
Watt, M. (1982). What is Logo? Creative Computing, 8(10), 112–29.
Williams, D., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., & Ford, M. (2008). Acquisition of Physics Content Knowledge
and Scientific Inquiry Skills in a Robotics Summer Camp. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 40(2), 201–216.
Wyeth, P., Venz, M., & Wyeth, G. (2004). Scaffolding children’s robot building and programming
activities. RoboCup 2003: Robot Soccer World Cup VII, 308–319.

135
Cilt 9, No 2, Ağustos 2013
 History and Educational Potential of LEGO Mindstorms
NXT

Geniş Özet

Robotların eğitsel amaçlarla kullanımı giderek artmaktadır. Eğitimcilerin robotların eğitsel

potansiyelinin farkına varmaları ve uluslararası robot turnuvalarının popülerlik kazanmasının
robotların eğitsel kullanımına katkısı büyüktür. Birçok üniversite ve okul, teknoloji ve robotlar
konulu yaz kampları düzenlemektedirler. LEGO Mindstorms NXT en popüler ve en çok kullanılan
eğitsel robot setleridir. Bu robot setlerinin geçmişi, Seymour Papert’in LOGO çalışmalarına
dayanmaktadır. Papert, çocukların doğuştan öğrenmeye karşı yetenekli olduklarına ve çocukların
bilgisayarlar ile iletişiminin, bilgisayarların uygun tasarımı ile onlar için doğal bir işlem haline
gelebileceğine inanmaktaydı. Aynı Fransa’da yaşayarak, Fransızca öğrenmek gibi (Papert, 1993).
Papert ve öğrencilerinin çocuklara bilgisayarı tanıtmak ve programlamayı onların fiziksel dünyasına
taşımaya yönelik çalışmaları, 1967 yılında LOGO programlama ortamının geliştirilmesi ile
sonuçlanmıştır (McNerney, 2004; McWhorter, 2005). LOGO programlama dili ile basketbol topu
büyüklüğünde, kubbe şeklindeki kaplumbağa (turtle) robot kontrol ediliyordu. Kaplumbağa zeminde
LOGO komutları ile ileri, geri, sağa ve sola gidebilmekte ve bütünleşik kalemi sayesinde büyük
kâğıtlara çizimler yapabilmekteydi (Martin, Mikhak, Resnick, Silverman, & Berg, 2000; Papert,
1993; Watt, 1982).
LOGO tüm dünyada on milyonlarca çocuk tarafından kullanıldı. Onun teorik altyapısı inşacılık
(constructionism) olarak bilinir ve eğitimcileri, araştırmacıları, eğitsel reformları ve teknolojinin
eğitimdeki yerini çok etkilemiştir (Kafai & Resnick, 1996). Papert inşacılık kuramını basitçe
“yaparak öğrenme” (learning by making) olarak tanımlamıştır” (Papert & Harel, 1991). Papert’e
göre inşacılık kuramı, yapılandırmacı kuramının (contructivism) temelindeki “yaparak öğrenmeyi”
(learning by doing) kapsar ve onun ötesine geçer (Papert, 1999).
1980’lerin ortalarında LEGO oyuncak firması ile LOGO yazılım ekibi birlikte çalışmalar
başladı. Var olan kaplumbağa, LEGO parçaları ile değiştirildi. Bu birleşimin sonucunda
LEGO/LOGO ürünü marketlerde yerini aldı. Böylece çocuklar robotlarını programlamadan önce
LEGO parçalarını kullanarak istedikleri şekilde tasarlayabiliyorlardı. Fakat LEGO/LOGO kablolar
ile bilgisayara bağlı olduğundan kullanımı ile ilgili problemler vardı (Martin et al., 2000; Sargent et
al., 1996; Watt, 1982). Bu problemler 1988 yılında Fred Martin ve arkadaşları tarafından geliştirilen
“Programlanabilir tuğla” ile aşıldı. Böylece bilgisayarda yazılan program, tuğlaya yükleniyor daha
sonra bilgisayar ile olan bağlantısı kesilerek, tuğlanın programı kendi başına çalıştırması
sağlanabiliyordu. 1996 yılında Randy Sargent ve arkadaşları ikinci nesil programlanabilir tuğlayı
geliştirdiler. Bu tuğla daha sonra LEGO tarafından RCX olarak piyasaya sürülecektir. 1998 yılında
LEGO, ismini Papert’in kitabından alan (Martin et al., 2000) Mindstorms NXT robot setlerini
piyasaya sürdü. Bu setlerde; Lego Teknik tuğlaları, bilgisayar tarafından kontrol edilebilir bir
mikroişlemci, mikroişlemciyi programlamaya imkan veren grafik arayüzüne sahip bir yazılım,
sensörler (sese, ışığa, uzaklığa ve dokunmaya duyarlı) ve hareket sağlamak için motorlar
bulunmaktadır.
Papert’e (1993) göre robotlar yapılandırmacı kuramını uygulayabilmek için en iyi araçlardır.
Robotik etkinliklerin araştırıldığı çalışmaların birçoğu öğrencilerin matematik ve fen derslerine karşı
daha fazla güdülenmeleri (Robinson, 2005; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004), matematik ve fen dersleri
için iyi bir uygulama ortamları olmaları (Rogers & Portsmore, 2004), öğrencilerin problem çözme
becerilerinin artması (Beer et al., 1999; Nourbakhsh et al., 2004; Petre & Price, 2004; Robinson,
2005; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004) ile sonuçlanmıştır. Bu konudaki alanyazını robotların herhangi bir
pozitif etkisinin bulunamadığı çalışmaları da içermektedir (Bjoerner, 2009; Fagin & Merkle, 2003;
Hussain et al., 2006; McNally et al., 2006).
Robotların eğitimde en yaygın kullanımı FTMM (Fen, Teknoloji, Mühendislik ve Matematik)
eğitimini desteklemeye yönelik kullanımıdır. Bu alanda yapılan çalışmaların büyük bir kısmı
robotların FTMM eğitiminde pozitif etkisi ile sonuçlanmıştır. Robotların FTMM eğitimine
uygulanması konusunda hala problemler mevcuttur. Örneğin, maliyet (McNally, Goldweber, Fagin,
and Klassner, 2006) farklı fiziksel ortamlarda sensörlerin kalibrasyon ihtiyacı, pil düzeyine göre
dönme ve robotun hızının değişmesi (Fagin and Merkle's, 2003).
Türkiyedeki FTMM müfredatı (Fen ve Teknoloji, Matematik ve Teknoloji ve tasarım dersleri)
incelendiğinde, bu derslerin genel kazanımlarının öğrencilere sorgulama, eleştirel düşünme ve
problem çözme becerilerini kazandırmak olduğu görülmektedir (TTKB, 2006a, 2006b, 2009).
Robotların çocukların sorgulama, eleştirel düşünme ve problem çözme becerilerine olan etkilerini

136
Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi
ÜÇGÜL

araştırmaya yönelik birçok çalışma yapılmıştır (Barak & Zadok, 2007; Barker & Ansorge, 2007;
Beer, Chiel, & Drushel, 1999; Hussain, Lindh, & Shukur, 2006; Johnson, 2003; Lindh &
Holgersson, 2007; Mauch, 2001; Mosley & Kline, 2006; Nugent, Barker, & Grandgenett, 2010;
Robinson, 2005; Sullivan, 2008; Wyeth, Venz & Wyeth, 2004). Bu çalışmalar göstermektedir ki,
robotlar öğrencilerin bu becerileri kazanmasında etkili olmaktadırlar. Robotlar, robotlarla ilgi
alanlarda örneğin programlama ve mekanik kullanılacak iyi bir araç olması yanında, fen, matematik,
teknoloji ve mühendislik (FTMM) alanlarında da kullanılabilecek bir araçtır (Mataric et al., 2007).
Robotların eğitimde kullanım amaçlarından biri de öğrencilerin teknoloji, bilgisayar ve
mühendislik alanlarına olan ilgilerini arttırmaya yöneliktir. Bu konuda yapılan çalışmalar
göstermektedir ki, robotlar öğrencilerin bu alanlara olan ilgisini arttırmakta ve mühendislik
kariyerine yönelmelerinde yardımcı olmaktadır (Burket et al., 2008).
Robotların eğitsel kullanımına yönelik çalışmalar yapacak araştırmacılara katkı sağlayabilmek
amacıyla yapılan bu alan yazın tarama çalışması robot setlerinin eğitsel olarak yalnızca robotlar ile
ilgili alanlarda kullanımı ile sınırlı olmayıp, FTMM eğitiminde de kullanılabilme potansiyeli
olduğunu göstermektedir.

137
Cilt 9, No 2, Ağustos 2013